Leviticus 18:22

The term 'male' (zakhar) is clear and refers to a male individual. The prohibition is explicitly about sexual intercourse between two males.

The verb 'shakhav' is commonly used in the Old Testament to refer to the sexual act. The construction 'mishk'vei ishah' (lit. 'lying of a woman') specifies the type of act: penetrative intercourse, as occurs between a man and a woman.

This term is crucial. 'To'evah' does not simply mean 'disgusting' or 'taboo,' but something that is deeply offensive to God's holiness and that defiles the person and the land. It is used for idolatry (Deut 7:25), unacceptable sacrifices (Deut 17:1), Canaanite practices (Deut 18:12), and also for other moral offenses (Prov 6:16-19). Its use here underscores the gravity of the prohibition within the framework of the Mosaic covenant and Israel's holiness.

Patristic

The Church Fathers consistently interpreted Leviticus 18:22 (and other OT and NT passages) as a clear and universal prohibition of homosexual acts, considering them 'unnatural' and contrary to the order of creation. They did not focus on the cultic context of the Mosaic law in the same way as modern debates, but rather saw the prohibition as an expression of divine moral law. For example, Clement of Alexandria in his *Paedagogus* (Book 2, Chapter 10, PG 8, cols. 498-501) condemns 'unnatural lusts' and 'intercourse with males,' explicitly linking such acts to the transgression of the natural law inscribed in creation. John Chrysostom, commenting on Romans 1:26-27 in his *Homily 4 on Romans* (PG 60, cols. 415-422), emphasizes with particular vehemence the perversion of nature in such acts, judging them graver than adultery precisely because they subvert the natural order established by God. Augustine of Hippo, in his *Confessions* (Book 3, Chapter 8, PL 32, col. 689), refers to 'sins against nature'—among which he implicitly includes homosexual acts—as the gravest and most detestable, insofar as they offend the Creator directly by violating the order He Himself established.

Reformed

The Reformed tradition generally interprets Leviticus 18:22 as part of God's moral law, which is universal and timeless, unlike ceremonial or civil laws that were fulfilled in Christ or were specific to Israel. They argue that 'abomination' refers to a violation of God's created order for human sexuality, also reflected in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6). Therefore, the prohibition of homosexual acts is considered valid for believers today. Calvin, for example, in his commentaries on Romans 1, reinforces the idea that such acts are 'against nature' and a manifestation of human depravity.

Interpretive tension: Interpretive tension within the Reformed system arises when consistently applying the distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. If Leviticus 18:22 is a universal moral law, how is the non-application of other Levitical 'abominations' (such as mixing fabrics or prohibitions against eating certain foods) that are not considered moral in the same sense justified? The distinction requires additional theological inferences that the text of Leviticus 18:22 alone does not explicitly develop.

Arminian

The Arminian tradition shares with the Reformed tradition the condemnation of homosexual acts as sin, based on Leviticus 18:22 and New Testament passages. They emphasize human responsibility to obey God's commands and the need for repentance. They focus on the individual's choice to engage in such acts, rather than orientation, and the availability of God's grace for transformation. Wesley, for example, in his sermons and notes, consistently condemns 'sodomy' as a grave sin, aligning with the traditional interpretation of sexual immorality.

Interpretive tension: Interpretive tension within the Arminian system can arise when reconciling the clear prohibition with God's unconditional grace and love, especially in ministering to individuals struggling with same-sex attraction. While the sinfulness of the act is affirmed, the system must navigate how to offer hope and transformation without minimizing the seriousness of the biblical command, and how human will aligns with God's revealed will in this aspect, which the text of Leviticus 18:22 does not directly address.

Contemporary

Within contemporary theology, there are two main interpretations: 1) The traditional/conservative interpretation, which reaffirms the historical reading of Leviticus 18:22 as a universal moral prohibition of homosexual acts, supported by NT passages (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6). They argue that 'abomination' reflects God's creational design for sexuality. 2) The revisionist/affirming interpretation, which argues that Leviticus 18:22 must be understood strictly within its Israelite cultic context, referring to specific acts of cultic prostitution or pederasty, or acts that violated ritual purity norms, but not to consensual, monogamous same-sex relationships. This perspective often emphasizes Jesus' silence on the issue and the primacy of love and grace in the NT to reinterpret or mitigate the direct application of this law today.